24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Research Files
New look Wow. I'll admit I had my doubts about how well the page would look with the scoll bars, but I'm happy to say this page looks freakin' awesome! It's good looking, it's concise and it's easy and practical to navigate (for whomever would want to navigate something like the Research Files). Congrats, StBacchus and thank you so much. Now, I can't wait until we've got all of the files filled in. Are you still working on this page, Kapoli? --Proudhug 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) : Is there supposed to be a page for all research files? At the moment I find it confusing how some have pages and some just are sections in the scroll bars. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 12:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you referring to the fact that some are linked to articles and some aren't? If so, the reason for this is that some of the Files are for OOU items, or concepts which would not appropriately have articles on Wiki 24. --Proudhug 13:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC) New pages I mentioned it once before, but I still think that we need new pages for these tables. This article is gigantic already, and it's only going to get bigger as I complete more and more of it. Here's what I'm proposing: *A separate page for each day... Research Files (Day X) *Make this article a "Table of Contents" page with a heading for each day and a list (without wikilinks) of the items in the table for that day. At the bottom of each section, a note that says, "For more information about any of these Research Files, please see Research Files (Day X)." That way, people can figure out which table they want without having to scroll through each one. 'Cause like I said, these bad boys are gonna be humongous. *New subcategories for the items that we're going to have actual articles for... Category:Research Files (Day X). I realize that some of these items (like the Secret Service or the Port of Los Angeles) are mentioned or featured in more than 1 episode/season, but they're only the Research File once. Also, I'd like to get some input on which of these items need their own article and which don't. If you see any items that you don't think need their own page, nominate them for deletion.... and if you see something that isn't linked that probably should be, put some brackets around it and I'll make a page for it eventually. -Kapoli 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) : I don't understand the issue with needing separate pages. Sure the page is/will be long, but is that really an issue? Making the page into a Table of Contents makes no sense since the page already HAS a table of contents. When would anyone ever have to scroll through the entire page looking for something? If they're looking for a RF from S4, they just click on "Season 4" at the top of the page. Each RF is small enough that it won't be a problem finding the one your looking for. --Proudhug 09:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) ::I don't see the problem with creating new pages for each Day. And the existing "table of contents" for this article isn't exactly what I had in mind. How would I know when looking for "Port of Los Angeles" that I want the Season 1 table instead of the Season 5 table? The location was featured prominently in the finales of both seasons.... and was a location in Season 4 as well. I'd have to scroll through the whole article and all 5 tables to find it. ::Not to mention the fact that when I go to edit the page now, I get the message.... WARNING: This page is 52 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. I'm not even finished with Day 1. The page is going to be extremely long when it's complete. Mozilla is loading the page now, but what if Mozilla, Netscpe, IE or any combination of the three can't handle loading it when it's over 100kb? Do we just shrug and ignore the fact that some people might not eventually be able to see the entire article? -Kapoli 10:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC) : Do you think the average reader doesn't know how to use their browser's search feature? Perhaps we should include a note at the top helping with that. Besides, your argument is counter-illustrative. If someone wants to look for the "Port of Los Angeles" RF but doesn't know what season it was featured in (and doesn't know how to search), wouldn't it be easier to scroll through one page of text as opposed to five? : As for the warning message, that applies to editing, not viewing. Once this page is "completed", it's not really going to be something that people will be editing very often, just new RFs when episodes air. "If someone wants to look for the "Port of Los Angeles" RF but doesn't know what season it was featured in (and ''doesn't know how to search), wouldn't it be easier to scroll through one page of text as opposed to five?" Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that we make a table of contents on each of the 5 pages.... I'm saying that ''this article would become a table of contents.... :The Research Files are a series of articles on Fox's official 24 website that expand upon things shown in each episode of the show and detail how they compare to reality. :Day 1 :Tranquilizer Gun :Homing Device :Dissociate Amnesia :Port of Los Angeles :For more information about any of these Research Files, please see Research Files (Day 1). :Day 2 :Joint Chiefs of Staff :Reporting Child Abuse :Hijab :Imam :For more information about any of these Research Files, please see Research Files (Day 2). Readers would be able to see the list of items on each page, and could go to the appropriate page instead of scanning through one gigantic, seemingly never-ending table. Seriously, all of these tables run together. Having the little TOC at the top isn't helping anything. What good does it do me to click on Day 3 at the top of the current page if I don't know what the hell is in the Day 3 chart? And expecting everyone to know how to use their browser search function is, well, kinda silly. First of all, most people I know don't know how to use CTRL+F, and second of all, if we're going to add a little "helpful hint" here, then would we put it on every page? -Kapoli 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Two thoughts: 1) Have you considered an alphabetical listing of each item rather than going by the Fox template? If I wanted to search for Port of Los Angeles, it'd be faster and more intuitive to look under a 'P' heading than try to remember what season it was mentioned in. Granted, http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Research_Files currently allows a direct search approach. It comes down to the purpose of this page: is it Trivia (where the Fox approach applies), or is it a Databank (where the layout matters)? 2) Can you expand/hide information in user Wiki code, like the built-in Contents hide/show feature? If so, that could be a solution to large pages anywhere on this Wiki, including this one as well as overflowing Memorable Quotes - rather than creating countless new pages. --Zhoul 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) : Yes, there is a way to hide/expand information in MediaWiki because I've seen it. I can't for the life of me remember where I've seen it, but I know I have. Perhaps someone else out there who's more familiar with scripts can help us out. This would make the page look even cooler, plus it would reduce unnecessary subpages. --Proudhug 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) ::How about the things they got over at Redwall wiki? The scrolls within the pages themselves? I can show it better than I describe it, look here and look at the bottom half of the page. - Xtreme680 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) : That's another possibility, though I don't think it would look nearly as nice on a page like this. Dammit, I really wish I could find an example of the hidden sections I'm talking about. --Proudhug 02:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Hmm, alot of suggestions floating around. I don't think doing these in alphabetical order is a better idea. If everyone else thinks that's the way to go, then fine, but I'm not going to realphabetize the lists, because I'd probably end up doing things in a slightly differently order than what you guys think I should do. Also, I don't know much about wikicode or MediaWiki or any of that. If someone has a better solution for making this article shorter, then be my guest and incorporate the changes on one of the tables. I can duplicate the changes for the rest of them. It's not working for me the way it is now. I hated this article to begin with, I didn't want the tables at all, but I tried to compromise when people insisted on keeping them. I compromised on the article and agreed to go with a new table, and now I'm looking for a compromise on the length issue. If no one likes the idea of separate pages, then I'm willing to try something else. -Kapoli 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) : I'm gonna keeping looking around for that hidden thingy, anyway. --Proudhug 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Proudhug, this is what you're looking for. ShowHide is an extension to Wikimedia and it doesn't work here. The simple way to create new pages without exactly creating new pages would be to create a template for each season's table and put those on this page. However, that doesn't solve the problem of having a good table of contents, which I agree this page desperately needs. The research files could be categorized themselves - Weapons, Places, Electronics, Computers, Actions, something like that. The "Table with rows" concept might work for that. --StBacchus 09:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) : Thank the Maker you found that! I was beginning to think I'd imagined the entire thing. That's a shame it's not supported at wikia. It's a really cool feature. --Proudhug 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :: Haha, nope, you're not crazy, but now you know why it's so hard to find anywhere. So, I went ahead and did the transclusion thing, and I put another thought based on Xtreme680' above suggestion in the Sandbox. If you guys don't like that, Kapoli's separate pages may be the best way to go, if only because the page is still daunting to read even when it isn't choking old browsers with its mass. :: Meanwhile, CTRL-F still works with the thing I put in the Sandbox, but Kapoli is right - many, if not most, people don't know how to do that. Whichever way we decide to go, I still think there ought to be a table of contents. --StBacchus 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) : So Kapoli, the ToC thing that you're suggesting, that's basically reverting the Research Files page back to the original table that we hated, then adding five new pages, isn't it? --Proudhug 23:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Day 2 I created a table for Day 2, but it's not finished yet. I'm tired. I started switching out the external links, and I changed all the times to reflect Day 2 times. If no one wants to jump in and finish this table, that's completely fine. I have every intention of finishing it up this weekend. -Kapoli 07:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The tables for Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3 are all filled in as far as episode links, external links to the Fox page, and titles of Research Files. Some of the pages should probably be linked/de-linked (unlinked?) and then we need to fill in the information fields in the tables. I'll put together the skeletons for the Season 4 and Season 5 tables later this weekend. Sorry I had the "In Use" template up for so long... I lost power last night towards the end of the night and lost all my work. Not fun! I had to re-do everything that I'd done this morning. -Kapoli 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC) : I had capitalized the name of the external link because that's how it appears on the website and I wanted to reflect that, plus it makes it look at least a little different from the interwiki link name, which is identical. Also, you changed a couple of the names for some reason. "The Griffith Observatory" and "Flak Jackets" are the names of the Research Files, not "Griffith Park Observatory" and "Flak Jacket". Otherwise, it's looking good so far. I can't wait until it's done! Hopefully, if I get time I can chip in some more. --Proudhug 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Alright... all the tables have been created. I changed the external links back to all CAPS. I changed them initially because I thought that they looked better that way, but I agree that they look better if they don't look exactly like the interwiki link. The only one that isn't capitalized is "WET List" because it's not capitalized on the Fox page. As for renaming a couple of the names... in Season 1, Keith and Carl call it the "Griffith Park Observatory" and that's what our article is called. I thought that the two should match, but I guess it doesn't matter, so I changed that back. In 'real life' it may be called "The Griffith Observatory", but on the show, it's not referred to as that. No matter, though. I'll start working on filling in the tables over the next few days. I wonder if we should create a separate page for each table? This article is going to be huge by the time the tables are filled in. Maybe if each Season had it's own page, it would be easier to navigate? Then we could have sub-categories of the "Research Files" category... "Season 1 Research Files", etc. Just like how we've now set up the Character categories. What do you think? -Kapoli 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) :Well, the name of the Research File is "The Griffith Observatory", but the interwiki link should be directed to our proper title which is "Griffith Park Observatory". :I don't think it's necessary to separate the seasons into different pages, but if others do it can always be done. It's not really a matter of navigation since the Table of Contents is there, and everything's in proper order. --Proudhug 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ::I notice that you got rid of the link to Death by Nerve Gas. That's fine with me, since I don't think that it needs an article, but one does already exist for it. It's basically lifted straight from the Fox site. If we're not going to keep it and link to it, then should I go ahead and nominate it for deletion? -Kapoli 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Yeah, for sure it should be deleted. I didn't realize the link existed. --Proudhug 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Go Holy. Crap. StBacchus found the Go reference. Does that mean we're going to do a page now? -Kapoli 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC) : Excellent work, StBacchus! I watched that episode twice, looking for the reference and somehow missed it! I don't know if "Go" should have its own page, but maybe "Go parlor" should? --Proudhug 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Copied from Fox Here's the scope. There is zero reason to have these research files copied exactly from the FOX website when it's just a link away. However it is useful to have pages on the different technology used on the show. We don't want information that doesn't come from the TV show, because we don't know if it's also true in real life. This is Wiki 24, not wikipedia, it should only have information known to be true from the show. I have removed the links to pages I don't think we need. If you disagree about a page we need, then we can talk about it here. I think the way people can help is to take the pages that are up, and remove information that doesn't come from the TV show. Then, add episodes that it appears in and how it is used in the show. However, these pages aren't very helpful if we don't have links to them. Add links to them in episode pages and anywhere else where the link may apply. If you have any questions about this, add it to my talk page. This is one of my several new big projects, so any help would be gladly received. - Xtreme680 :I don't think we should even have this page at all. I think we should break up and keep the items that are important and relevant to 24 and sort them appropriately - weapons, technology, etc. I think this table and the entire article should be deleted. :For the items that do matter or are relevant (like EMP), we should have an article that discusses what an EMP is and how it ties into the show. Then, EMP should be linked from the related episode guide and it should be categorized appropriately (and include the link to the Fox article as an external link). We shouldn't have a table with some items linked and some not linked. If we keep this table, then everything needs a link, and since not everything is important, I say get rid of the table and article. We can keep the "Research Files" category, but we don't need this page. -Kapoli 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ::I think this page is important merely for information on what the research files have been, and putting links where we have relevant pages. Most of the items that have pages are also categorized by technology and weapons. I agree about having the research file external link, but I don't know if the category is necessary anymore since so few of them have pages. I don't think everything needs a link, since not everything is relevant, but the table is, and the links make it more useful. Links are for use, not style. I agree, some of these things need to be more linked from various episode guides, a problem I have brought up on the community portal, though it has remained unanswered. - Xtreme680 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :::I guess I'm just thinking about some new contributor coming along (most of them don't read up on style/policies before jumping in) and deciding to "do us a favor" by creating pages for all of those articles we've already deleted (like "Go") and the other non-linked pages by simply cutting and pasting the information from Fox. Having the table gives the impression that we want the information from the Fox page but haven't gotten around to getting all of it. That's my opinion, anyway... -Kapoli 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ::Almost all of the linked pages have no information from Fox. If they do, let's speedy delete them. I guess unwanted pages comes with the risk of having information, but nominating for deletion is fairly easy. - Xtreme680 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) New Layout/Table I agree that the links in the table make the table most useful, but I think they create a problem as well. When I look at this page, I see: :* A note at the top indicating that the list is for Research Files from Fox :* A table that is linked in some places, but unlinked in others :* An external link at the bottom to the Fox page I don't think we need the table. Or if we're going to keep the table, why don't we remove the items that have nothing to do with the show, like Go? The way the article is now (partially linked) gives the impression that we haven't gotten around to copying and pasting the information from Fox yet. -Kapoli 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :Perhaps a note at the top would help avoid confusion? The table is useless if we remove the pages we don't have links for. - Xtreme680 05:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC) :: Well, the lack of red links shows that we don't intend to create articles in the future. I think this page should exist since it's a part of the official website. How about if the chart is expanded and revamped? It would be interesting to have four fields: # Day # Research File # Description (a very brief summary of the Fox.com article) # Relevance (describing how the topic does or does not specifically relate to the show) :: This would solve two problems. It would actually make it an intersting and informative read, and it would make it clear that some of the RFs don't require thier own Wiki 24 article. --Proudhug 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I know that there aren't any red links that suggest "need-to-be-created" pages right now, but I brought up the issue because several weeks ago, I was planning to copy and paste the info from Fox's website to "complete" the chart. I thought that it looked awkward with some of them done and some not done (and some of them were copied and pasted directly from the site). Luckily, I never got around to doing it, and then Xtreme brought up "Go" on the AfD page. Then I realized that we didn't want the information copied and pasted. I like the idea of revamping the chart. I can get on board with that plan. One question - would we include each item's external link in the "Description" section, even the items that we're not expanding on (like Go)? -Kapoli 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) : That's certainly an option if people agree it's necessary. --Proudhug 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Alright, check out the Sandbox for my attempt at a new table for the Research Files. It needs alot of work, but it's a start. -Kapoli 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC) : I went ahead and started putting parts of the new table in. I put in all the fields for the first season and can do the rest later if no one else does. Otherwise, all that needs to be done is the actual article text. --Proudhug 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Need to catch up We are WAY behind on this. Season 6 isn't up there, and a lot from the other seasons is far from finished. OneWeirdDude 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) :For those who care, see the WayBack Machine. OneWeirdDude (talk) 17:59, January 22, 2014 (UTC) Day 6 Day 6 is finally up there, and now I just need help with fitting it into the Table of Contents; I can do much of each of the summaries myself. OneWeirdDude 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Hmmm I think something needs to be done with this page (and all the pages encompassed in the "research files" section) but I'm not sure what. At the moment this page is pretty messy. Pyramidhead, is there anything you could do to make it look better? Also, the fact that the research files are no longer online makes everything a bit harder. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 18:19, August 1, 2010 (UTC) : Bump. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 11:10, August 10, 2010 (UTC) :: I'm clueless, and always have been regarding this. Ever since I started working here, this was the weirdest part of the whole project. I'll jump in the discussion when I'm inspired, but as for brainstorming the first ideas, I've always been pretty unoriginal with things to do with the Files. 14:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC) Overhaul I would quite like to overhaul this page as was mentioned above. here is a sample of what I'd like to do - convert these tables to be more consistent with the visual style of the site (I always thought these table stuck out as looking "different" to other pages here). Also remove the double scroll bars which is bad practise on any website and hard to navigate with. Additionally I've added pictures from the episodes to illustrate where they appear - and finally, re-written the descriptions to be less of a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the episode (which is done on other pages) and more a description of what the research file says (which after all is what this page is about). I've also worded it to be describing the actual research file, rather than the subject of the research file. Any thoughts? If there's consensus I'll continue and do the rest of the files like this.--Acer4666 (talk) 14:37, August 12, 2015 (UTC)